The Complainant is Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is David Joel Claude Zachara, I Visa Services Co. Ltd., Mauritius.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 31, 2020. On January 31, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 2, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 5, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 7, 2020.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 10, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for the Respondent to file a Response was March 1, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the parties of the Respondent’s default on March 2, 2020.
The Center appointed Marylee Jenkins as the sole panelist in this matter on March 12, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual BackgroundThe Complainant is a French banking and insurance services group. Based on the review of the uncontested evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Panel determines that the Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for the word mark CREDIT MUTUEL in multiple jurisdictions including (the “Complainant’s Mark”):
- French Trademark Registration No. 1475940 (filed on July 7, 1988; registered on July 8, 1988) in International classes 35 and 36;
- French Trademark Registration No. 1646012 registered on November 20, 1990 in International classes 16, 35, 36, 38, and 41;
- European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 9943135 (filed on May 4, 2011; registered on October 20, 2011) in International classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, and 45; and
- International Trademark Registration No. 570182 (filed on May 16, 1991; registered on May 17, 1991) in International classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41.
The Complainant also owns the domain names
The Domain Name
The Complainant states that Credit Mutuel is a French banking and insurance services group, providing its services to 12 million clients for more than a century. The Complainant states that it has over 3,000 offices in France and provides services in all fields of finance. The Complainant further maintains an Internet presence through its primary websites at the domain names
The Complainant states that it owns numerous trademark registrations for the Complainant’s Mark and that none of these registrations have been abandoned, cancelled, or revoked. Based on its extensive use and trademark registrations, the Complainant alleges that it owns the exclusive right to use the Complainant’s Mark and that the Complainant’s Mark is well-known. Additionally, the Complainant states that the use of the wording “Credit Mutuel” is reserved to the Complainant and its related branches by French Ministry Order No. 58-966 issued on October 16, 1958.
The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark and that the fact that the Respondent has added the descriptive phrase “lemediateur” (“the mediator”) to the Complainant’s Mark, which is closely linked to and associated with both the Complainant’s brand and the Complainant’s Mark, only serves to underscore and increase the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s Mark. The Complainant also alleges that this descriptive term could confuse its clients into believing that it refers to a mediator or customer service website from the Complainant that clients can use to file complaints or resolve potential claims or litigations between them and the Complainant. The Complainant argues that adding a dash between the descriptive terms and the Complainant’s Mark does not sufficiently distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s Mark. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and the Complainant’s Mark by registering a domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s Mark in its entirety and closely related phrase, which demonstrate that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to confuse unsuspecting Internet users looking for the Complainant’s services, and to mislead Internet users as to the source of the Domain Name and its website. The Complainant also alleges that the Domain Name redirects to a different domain name and website at “www.immobilierilemaurice.com” which offers real estate offerings in Mauritius. The Complainant alleges that this redirection by the Respondent created a likelihood of confusion as with the Complainant and the Complainant’s Mark as the Complainant also offers real estate services with a domain name that also contains the word “immobiliere” (“real estate”). The Complainant then alleges that the Respondent has not included any disclaimer on its website to remove any affiliation or link between the Respondent and the Complainant.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Additionally, the Complainant notes that it has not licensed, authorized, or permitted the Respondent to register the Domain Name incorporating the Complainant’s Mark. Rather, the Complainant notes that the Respondent has neither business relations with nor knowledge of the Respondent and that it cannot determine the identity of the Respondent or the owner of the “www.immobilierilemaurice.com” website as the website does not provide that information and provides a false address and phone number.
The Complainant further alleges that at the time of registration of the Domain Name, the Respondent knew, or should have known, of the existence of the Complainant’s Mark and that the registration of a domain name containing well-known trademarks constitutes bad faith per se. The Complainant then alleges that the Respondent could have chosen this Domain Name for no other reason than to create an impression of an association with the Complainant as the Complainant’s Mark is neither descriptive nor generic, which likelihood of confusion is made even more likely by the addition of the term “lemediateur.” The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent, at the time of initial filing of the Complaint, had employed a privacy service to hide its identity, which supports an inference of bad faith registration and use.
The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s Mark, or any minor variation of it, strongly implies bad faith. The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsParagraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the domain name holder is to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (complainant) asserts to an ICANN-approved dispute resolution service provider that:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from the Respondent’s default as the Panel considers appropriate. Nevertheless, the Panel may rule in the Complainant’s favor only after the Complainant has proven that the above elements are present.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Panel finds that the Complainant has provided sufficient evidence to show that it is the owner of and has rights in and to the Complainant’s Mark.
A review of the second-level domain (“lemediateur-créditmutuel”) of the Domain Name shows that the second-level domain comprises the Complainant’s Mark CREDIT MUTUEL in its entirety with the descriptive phrase “lemediateur” as a prefix. The hyphen and the acute accent in the Domain Name provide no significance in this review in determining whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. Rather the review of the Complainant’s trademark registrations for the word mark CREDIT MUTUEL in multiple classes and jurisdictions shows that such registrations well pre-date the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name. The inclusion of the descriptive phrase “lemediateur” in the second-level domain does not differentiate the Domain Name from the Complainant’s Mark. Rather such inclusion, along with the evidence of the Complainant’s own web sites at the domain names
Based on this uncontested evidence, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark in which the Complainant has rights and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThere is no evidence that the Complainant has at any time ever licensed, sponsored, endorsed, or authorized the Respondent to register or use the Complainant’s Mark in any manner. In addition, no evidence has been presented that before notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent had been using or was making demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with any type of bona fide offering of goods or services or that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name, as an individual, business or otherwise. Rather the uncontested evidence clearly shows that the Complainant had well-established rights to the Complainant’s Mark in multiple jurisdictions that substantially pre-date the Respondent’s registrations of the Domain Name. In addition, the fact that the Domain Name resolves to a website offering similar services and information as that found on the Complainant’s own websites does not support a finding that the Respondent was or is making any type of legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers. Such uses of the Domain Name by the Respondent cannot be considered to be legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithBased upon the undisputed evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Respondent clearly had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s Mark when registering the Domain Name. This finding is supported by the uncontested evidence showing that the registration of the Domain Name by the Respondent in no way pre-dates the Complainant’s substantially earlier registration dates for the Complainant’s Mark. Coupled with the evidence of the Complainant’s own websites at the domain names
When considered with the above evidence and findings, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users (and now particularly the Complainant’s customers) to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Mark and its websites as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement thereof and the services offered thereon. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent registered and has and is using the Domain Name in bad faith and that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied.
7. DecisionFor the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name
Marylee Jenkins
Sole Panelist
Date: April 10, 2020